I don't have the link to the Scottish newspaper that reported this, but buried (pardon the pun) in this otherwise very funny op-ed by Gail Collins in the New York Times is that someone has written a screenplay about the new, rehabilitated Richard III and has supposedly offered it to RA (who is not identified by name, since I guess he's not on Gail Collins' radar screen). This all sounds very sketchy and speculative, but I can actually see it. He's a bit old (which is funny, since many thought him a bit young for Thorin), and a bit tall (again, previous complaint), but he has the look.

I hope that Richard will be involved in some way if this film gets made. As Thorin he has shown considerable talent for portraying short kings with nephews, I just hope he doesn't risk getting typecast

if its so, especially with what appears to be the recovery of the body last week. I will watch with a lot of interest to see how the writers portray him. The movement to rehab his reputation has been around for a long time and Shakespeare fan though I am history probably significantly misrepresents a good portion of his life. But I do think he had the Princes killed. A puzzle of a man. Can see RA giving the complexity it deserves. Thanks for the pos! ...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.

I'd definitely go and see it, Armitage would be pretty good in that role. It's unlikely that he'd be able to live up to McKellen's Richard III, but then Thorin will never be Gandalf. "These are Gundabad Wargs! They will outrun you!"

if only because, morality aside, it would have been a stupid move on his part to not be able to trot them out to prove that they were being treated humanely. Edward's precontract seems to have been valid, so they wouldn't have been much of a political threat if they indeed weren't eligible for the throne. Most of the problems came from the Woodvilles trying to hold on to power they no longer had a right to with Richard in charge during Edward V's youth.

It must be said, however, that the boys almost definitely died on his watch and very few historians really believe that they survived into Henry's reign, particularly since Richard never produced them to squash rumors. Whether the act was carried out on his orders or someone (possibly Buckingham) committed an act of treachery to ruin his reputation or better their own chances of gaining power, he ultimately failed in his moral responsibility to protect them. Illegitemate or not, they were still young children owed safety.

though even with the legalized illegitimacy the Princes could have provided a popular and highly sentimental focus for rebellion. If the murders were carried out by Burckingham alone it could foreshadow his later turncoating by showing his jostling for position (?) or as an unappreciated gesture of loyalty (?). If Richard and Buckingham were in collusion, it doesn't exp[lain the later drift; but neither does it make sense that Buckingham never attempted to place the blame for deaths at Richard's door at some point before his execution. The other puzzle is the complete lack of investigation by Richard - as reigning King - into their disappearance; I go back and forth, but that's why I feel that guilt at least partially lies with Richard. Either way it left an awkward void, as you said. If you can't show them around people are going to figure out that something is wrong!

All in all....what a potentially fascinating script! People compare RA's potential performance to Sir Ian's, but as one is Shakespearean and one will be a modern script they will be very different productions. I would guess the project RA is concerned in will be filmed period as well and not 20th century.

Also just read that the Queen has forbidden DNA testing of the children's remains. So no confirmation or refution of identity any time soon. Too bad. ...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.

the Queen denied one of the more recent requests, a few years ago I believe. There are just so many times that the remains can be disturbed and utilized, and there would have to be an earth-shattering technological advancement to justify another disturbance. Perhaps it's time that the remains of the two preteens found in the White Tower, most likely the Princes, be left to rest in peace.

But still, it's amazing what they were able to do with Richard III's remains. This was a scientific and research marvel, and I'd love to see it go further.

In Reply To

the Queen denied one of the more recent requests, a few years ago I believe. There are just so many times that the remains can be disturbed and utilized, and there would have to be an earth-shattering technological advancement to justify another disturbance. Perhaps it's time that the remains of the two preteens found in the White Tower, most likely the Princes, be left to rest in peace.

and I believe the Queen is reluctant because of the ethical qualms of what to do with the children if they AREN'T the Princes. As of now even in their unidentified state they have a resting place. Plus I can't help but think that there must be a bit of worry that if you shake DNA trees to hard you never know what might fall and squash on your head. ...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.

We will have to see how they end up writing it, but I think with the modern school of thought it will be VERY subtle and show the change in charactar(s), not just the actions proceeding from an intial starting point! Mark Strong has done a range of different parts. Dark side for him perhaps? Selfishly would love to see some of my favorites like Nicholas Farrell and Rufus Sewell.

I looked at the skeleton again and wow the curvature is shocking. He probably would have only looked straight when sitting. Though its so low it may not have caused disruption above upper thorax. The clavicles look symmetrical. Maybe like FDR he sort of stage-managed his appearances. ...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.

The ages and time period of the remains are consistent, and how many kids are likely to have been walled up in the White Tower? There would have to be a pretty wild story indeed for them to be anyone else.

I think it's more the ethical issue of how many times you disturb the remains and that there's a finite amount of material rather than the possibility of opening a can of worms.

Anyone with a deformity in those days -- even a prince -- was probably viewed with suspicion by people, given the religious underscoring of the times. That made it easy. Who would you want as king, this twisted, creepy guy obviously possessed by demons, or this handsome warrior? Not so different from today, really...

that as far as Richard being responsible for the boys' death: a) He did not stand to benefit; there were nine other heirs to the house of York, including three males. b) There is no contemporary accusation [not even rumors] c) The boys' mother continued on friendly terms with him until her death, and her daughter attended Palace festivities. d) He showed no fear of the other heirs of York, providing generously for their upkeep and granting all of them their royal state. e) His own right to the crown was unassailable, approved by Act of Parliament and public acclamation; the boys were out of the succession and of no danger to him. f) If he had been nervous about disaffection then the person to have got rid of was not the two boys, but the person who really was next in succession to him: young Warwick. Whom he publicly created his heir when his own son died.

Henry VII: a) It was of great importance to him that the boys should not continue to live. By repealing the Act acknowledging the children's illegitimacy, he made the elder boy King of England, and the youngest boy the next heir. b) In the Act which he brought before Parliament for the attainting of Richard, he accused RIchard of the usual tyranny and cruelty but made no mention of the two young Princes. The conclusion is inevitable that at that time the two boys were alive and their whereabouts known. c) The boys' mother was deprived of her livelihood and consigned to a nunnery eighteen months after his succession. d) He took immediate steps to secure the persons of all the other heirs to the crown, and kept them in close arrest until he could with the minimum of scandal get rid of them. f) He had no right whatever to the throne. Since the death of Richard, young Warwick was the de jure King of England.

She makes a pretty convincing case that Sir James Tyrrell actually killed the boys and was promptly rewarded lavishly by Henry (and also got safely out of England). The way we imagine our lives is the way we are going to go on living our lives.

But it seems the two year gap from 1483 (last sighting) and 1485 (attainter granted, Bosworth) would mean that the skeleton purported to be Edward V would have matured at least a year above the upper limit of identified age.

There is more than material to test with minimal disruption. Even Tut's fetuses yielded DNA in much older and fragmented remains. But I yield that just because we could doesn't always mean we should. ...she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons.